Ron Paul, The Republicans, and the “Hidden Support”

1. They are right, without question (after all, their perfect doctrinal system says so).

2. It is so obvious and intuitive that they are right, that there must be a huge but silent majority that agree with them entirely.

Thus, their anointed representative in the Republican party MUST have huge reserves of previously unseen support, the polls are inaccurate, they aren’t measuring all the libertarians, he’s ready for a surge blah blah blah.

Ron Paul never had anything more than a snowballs chance in hell. I agree with him on most things, but his stance on 9/11 and the war alone put him (and almost every other doctrinaire Libertarian) into the “would vote for McCain first” zone.

For anyone who knows me, that is as stinging a rebuke as I could possibly give without resorting to vulgarity; or invoking a Clinton.

Let me make this even clearer. I like Paul, I respect him, I agree with him on far more issues than any other candidate; BUT FOR HIS POSITIONS ON THE WAR AND 9/11 ALONE, I WOULD NEVER VOTE FOR HIM.

Do you know how many MILLIONS of people out there feel exactly the same way?

Funny enough, unlike the phantom Paul supporters, those people aren’t hidden; they’re the ones campaigning for Duncan Hunter, and Tom Tancredo, and Fred Thompson… or misguidedly supporting Romney because they think that somehow he’s electable and at least better than McCain or Rudy.

I can’t stomach Paul for president AND I’M A LIBERTARIAN FOR GODS SAKE. I MIGHT vote for him over Hillary; but I’m more likely not to vote in such a contest.

Basically what that means, is that I believe, all things being equal, responsible adults should be able to do whatever the hell they want to do, so long as nobody’s getting hurt, who isn’t paying extra

Like this:

LikeLoading...

http://www.thelibertypapers.org Doug Mataconis

Chris,

I’m probably more supportive of Paul at this point than you are, but I have to agree.

I’ve said all along that I didn’t think Ron Paul had a snowball’s chance in hell of winning the nomination and nothing that has happened since he announced has changed that opinion. For me, my support for his presence in the race was based more on the hope that a libertarian-leaning Republican would actually have a national stage on which to show the country that not every member of the GOP is like George W. Bush or James Dobson.

So far, that hasn’t happened. And, unless this debate changed something, I’m beginning to think that it never will.

R. Harmon

Well, could you explain why you feel so favorably about US Foreign Policy?

I regard Ron Paul’s “stance” on the GWOT as absolutely correct and clearly principled. Our nation has spent the better part of 60 years actively meddling in other nations and region. And, this goes without mentioning the lies and manipulations that got us into the war in Iraq.
We can say all that what we did has been with the best intention’s but we know where that leads.

You can’t make the world a better place at the point of a gun. Defend yourself, be strong, but most of all be ethical while you do that. If you can’t do that, maybe you need another political tag to file yourself under. But, I personally, don’t use political party labels any more, so maybe you might consider the same.

http://thelibertypapers.org/2005/11/22/a-bit-about-kevin/ Kevin

Chris,

Amen. It’s been damn time somebody smacks the Ron Paul cult hard upside the head. The majority of the American people and libertarians and libertarian leaners maybe against the Iraq War because of how horribly mismanaged it is, but they do not support appeasement of Islamofascists like Al-Qaeda.

Ron Paul is a kook, a nut, and an embarrassment to the libertarian movement.

Chris

Libertarians don’t support the war and they don’t support an interventionist foriegn policy either. So what exactly is it about those issues that Libertarians don’t like?

http://anarchangel.blogspot.com Chris

Actually, the majority of the American people AREN’T against the war; they are against the stupid way we’ve been running the war, which seems calculated to lose.

What non-agressionists and isolationsists don’t seem to understand… in fact what Libertarians in general (not the large L) don’t seem to understand, is that 80% or more of the people in this country fundamentally disagree with them on the non-agression principle.

Both committed Democrats and committed Republicans, who combined make up about 80% of the population; support some type of interventionist foreign policy. The two sides simply differ on the type and circumstances of such intervention.

william poirier md

PAUL IS JUST REPEATING WHAT IS DOCUMENTED BY HISTORY,,,AND THE OLD SAYING HE WHO DOES NOT
REMEMBER HISTORY ,,,,,WILL FAIL,,,,AND WILL REPEAT IT…..IT SEEMS THE CANDIDATES ON BOTH TICKETS HAVE FORGOTTEN THEIR HISTORY PAUL AND GRAVEL HAVE NOT……….EITHER ONE GETS MY SUPPORT AND MONEY………WE NEED TO STOP THE PANDERERS LIKE ROMNNEY,THE MAYOR,THE ANTI-EVOLUTIONISTS,,,,,AND THE JUST PLAIN STUPID,eg MCCAIN AND SUPPORT A REALLY OPEN DEBATE……ESPECIALLY SINCE THE NEXT ELECTION IS SO IMPORTANT THE RID THE COUNTRY OF THE GEORGE W BUSH AND NEOCONS MISTAKES

http://thelibertypapers.org/2005/11/22/a-bit-about-kevin/ Kevin

BTW: I should go ahead and say I’m about 90% sure I’ll be supporting Tom Tancredo.

http://www.belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

Chris (not the post author Chris),

The problem is the Ron Paul is supposed to be appealing to Republican voters. While there may be some out there who agree with what he said Tuesday, I don’t think it will resonate well with GOP voters, especially not in pro-military states like South Carolina.

R. Harmon

I’ve been up all night, but I don’t get why Paul’s position against the War in Iraq and interventionist policy can be contrary to your stated libertarian position.

I haven’t been a paying member of the LP for a few years now, the last presidential candidate I supported was the late Harry Browne. Has the LP changed so much since then?

http://anarchangel.blogspot.com Chris

Oh and I should note, I’m a libertarian, not a Libertarian.

I support fundamental liberty; and the supremacy in moral principle of the liberty of the sovereign man.

I reject the non-aggression principle; because sometimes it IS necessary to initiate aggression to ensure that greater offenses against liberty do not occur.

Sometimes, interventionism IS right. Sometimes it IS moral.

Also, sometimes pragmatism is necessary in order to function in this world. Doctrinaires live in a land of theory; pragmatists live in the real world.

Read my profile. I call myself a muscular minarchist; and I explain what that means in my profile and my early posts.

R. Harmon

Ron Paul isn’t against going after those who attacked us, but he is against dragging a whole region of the world into war in order to do so while having government officials keep scaring the American People out of their liberties…

http://www.belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

Chris (the post author),

Your point is well taken. And I am hardly an isolationist myself.

At the same time, though, I think far little attention is paid to the consequences of foreign policy decisions. My only wish is that Paul had been more articulate in raising the point about blowback and hadn’t made it seem like anyone who raises this point is arguing that we “asked for” al Qaeda to attack us.

Like it or not, we’ve done things in the Middle East that have created resentments that al Qaeda and other organizations have been able to exploit…..that is what I’m afraid the results of the inept handling of the Iraq War may turn out to be.

http://anarchangel.blogspot.com Chris

Doug,

Not to say we havent made foreign policy errors; but trying to explain the actions of madmen isn’t only futile; it’s harmful.

We could have been perfect angels, and the terrorists would still be attacking us because of their pathology of a failed culture.

We are the biggest symbol of everything they believe to be wrong and evil in the world; and would be even if we were completely non-interventionist.

If we abandoned Israel completely; and left the middle east entirely; they would still be trying to kill us, simply because of who we are.

At that point, “why they hate us” is completely irrelevant; the only thing that matters is stopping them.

http://www.itfrom.us sadcox

Of course Ron Paul doesn’t have a chance in hell of winning the nomination. Anyone who supports him because they think he does is very misguided.

But I do support Ron Paul. I support him because his presence forces the other candidates to address issues that they would all agree to ignore otherwise.

He pushes the debate into areas that are extremely uncomfortable for many of the candidates and forces them to take stands and defend them.

What is so bad about that? Is the purpose of the debates to find out who is most electable based on how they look in a suit, or to find out where the candidates stand on tough issues?

http://thelibertypapers.org/2005/11/22/a-bit-about-kevin/ Kevin

Doug,

Like it or not, weâ€™ve done things in the Middle East that have created resentments that al Qaeda and other organizations have been able to exploitâ€¦..

Which Al-Qaeda grievances do you want to give in and make go away:

1) The existance of the state of Israel.

2) The removal of the slightly less insane governments in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and other Arab nations with a replacement by full-fledged jihadist states with Sharia law.

3) U.S. forces out of the Middle East, although they’ve been invited there by the local governments.

Heh. Same thing Giuliani did. Your entire statement is without support or argumentation, merely that you feel Ron Paul was wrong when the things he said are the official position of the 911 report and the CIA, as well as every major governmental agency about. This ‘head in sand’ tendency is one reason Republicans have become a laughing stock around the world.

You are a ‘small-l’ libertarian, so I will spare you a long lecture, but suffice to say every major Libertarian Party candidate has been anti-war, and war itself runs contrary to the ‘non-aggression principle’ that underlies orthodox libertarianism. Besides, if you really support liberty, you support liberty everywhere, including in Iraq, where they no longer have the luxury of life, let alone liberty.

Chuck

I’m getting pretty sick of coming over to a site that has the cajones to call itself “thelibertypapers” to defend this country’s #1 advocate of liberty.

You want an Empire? Then vote for that. And voice your opinion. But don’t declare that as being somehow consistent with “liberty”.

The Leviathan Warfare/Welfare state is not consistent with “Liberty”, and never will be.

I’m not even going to address anything substantive in a post by someone who believes in “Islamofascism”, a figment of the neocon imagination. Here’s the deal, Kevin old bean: we’re going to kick you and your neocon brethren out on your fat, Limbaugh-loving asses. Go find your own party. Because it’s *YOU* who are on the fringe. *YOU* who are on the margins. The Republican party is the party of conservatives, not jingoist statists like you.

Take your open borders, your gun control, and your national ID card, and stuff it. Because check it out: I’ll *die* before I watch this country become the totalitarian nightmare your pushing for. How’s that for a smack upside the head, you chickenhawk coward? You people talk a great game, when it’s not your butt on the line.

And yes, genius, I don’t want my tax dollars, which this government takes from me *at the point of a gun*, to support a regime *anywhere* in the world, whether they “ask for it” or not. We’ve got enought kleptocrats on the dole in DC as it is, we don’t need to subsidize anymore overseas.

Tim

I called the Michigan GOP this morning & was told Saul is withdrawing his petition to have Ron Paul banned from future debates.

If Ron Paul has no chance, why couldn’t the neo-cons handle even 24 hours of heat before they high-tailed it and ran away instead of protecting their home?

If they keep losing battles at this rate in their War Against Ron Paul, I think we’re going to be looking at Paul in the White House.

Grassroots is obviously growing into a grassfire & unless they quickly call in Ronald McRudy to bring in the paramilitary police to stop us in a show of how “tough” their poltical leaders “really” are, they can kiss their movement all the way back to the far left wing of the democratic party where it belongs.

Tom Gellhaus

To the OP, Chris –

It seems that there are many libertarians (ESR of “open source” fame comes to mind first) who have bought – hook, line, and sinker – the necessity of the GWOT and/or the war in Iraq.

I really fail to understand the trust placed by so many in the STATE. All the reasons given in favor of this bloody war are given by the STATE. All the reasons for staying in Iraq, and all the fear that agents of terrorism will sneak in this country and “OMG THEY WILL BOMB US AND BLOW UP MALLZ !!!!11!!”, are being argued on behalf of the government who has a vested interest in MORE POWER for itself.
It really is true that war is the health of the State. Our fears, our desire to avoid what is claimed to be unacceptable risk of increased attacks within our borders, are being used and fed by a group of people who do NOT have our interests at heart – they have their OWN self-interest at heart.

Do you not see already how much of our freedom has been stolen by these thugs who claim they are acting to protect us ?

It’s a big con game, and Ron Paul is one of the few who is trying to show it for what it is.

Danny

Its good to see that you back up your claim with facts. While Dr. Paul has proof from Bin Laden himself and the 9/11 reports…you have….well you have a big mouth.

R. Harmon

BTW, I actually agree with the points the OP made about Libertarians always “assuming that they are right” -because usually they are right if they stick to principled positions.

It is when they start compromising those principles that they start becoming “wrong”.

Chris

Maybe we can figure out how many millions it would take? It appears to be a multiplication problem.

~300 Million People in the US * ~30% support of the war = ~9 Million People. And what % of that 9 Million even vote? If it is anything less than 12%?

http://thelibertypapers.org/2005/11/22/a-bit-about-kevin/ Kevin

Chuck,

I’m so glad I was able to draw a “true conservative”, Alex Jones listening, tin foil kook to respond to me.

Iâ€™m not even going to address anything substantive in a post by someone who believes in â€œIslamofascismâ€, a figment of the neocon imagination.

Because Rudy, you can’t address it substantively.

Take your open borders, your gun control, and your national ID card, and stuff it. Because check it out: Iâ€™ll *die* before I watch this country become the totalitarian nightmare your pushing for. Howâ€™s that for a smack upside the head, you chickenhawk coward? You people talk a great game, when itâ€™s not your butt on the line.

Yeah because I support open borders, gun control, and a national ID card. You’ve pegged me down perfectly genius.

And yes, genius, I donâ€™t want my tax dollars, which this government takes from me *at the point of a gun*, to support a regime *anywhere* in the world, whether they â€œask for itâ€ or not. Weâ€™ve got enought kleptocrats on the dole in DC as it is, we donâ€™t need to subsidize anymore overseas.

You know you can always refuse to pay taxes if you have such a problem with foreign aid.

Chris

Maybe we can figure out how many millions it would take? It appears to be a multiplication problem.

~300 Million People in the US * ~30% support of the war = ~9 Million People. And what % of that 9 Million even vote? If it is anything less than 12%? 12% is less than a million people + establishment special interests that your views are pandering too. Maybe enough people to fill an average size city in the American Midwest.

Emotional appeals are easier to convince people with than 3rd grade mathematics though, just ask Giuliani about 9/11. It is like numbers don’t exist when they contradict one’s appeal.

You pretend like your position is the position of the majority when the numebrs show that it is not. The majority of the American people want us out of Iraq, and this election is going to be 100% all about the war. The way the elites on the right are gushing over Giuliani tells me that abortion is not as important as the war. The Deer in the Headlights reaction of the candidates when asked to name a program they would cut was fairly telling. Who cares about leviathan when there is 24, torture, war, bombing, to talk about. The war is all that matters.

http://thelibertypapers.org/2005/11/22/a-bit-about-kevin/ Kevin

Tim,

I called the Michigan GOP this morning & was told Saul is withdrawing his petition to have Ron Paul banned from future debates.

If Ron Paul has no chance, why couldnâ€™t the neo-cons handle even 24 hours of heat before they high-tailed it and ran away instead of protecting their home?

I call bullshit. I see nothing on blog search engines or on Google News that substantiates your claim.

Chris S

Oops. 90 Million ;_; Sill not a majority…

http://www.freshcutsalads.com Chad

Great little exchange here fellas.

Fact: Ron Paul has been elected 10 times to congress, and had over 500,000 votes in 88 when he ran as a libertarian, so he MUST have SOME real support.

Fact: Ron Paul IS NOT AS WELL KNOWN OR AS POPULAR as the “top tier” candidates.

Nobody is claiming this. What’s being claimed is that he has a message that is resonating with more people than the “top tier” candidates. You may disagree, but there’s no way of proving whose right except in a primary election. The national polls aren’t exactly scientific either. They measure one thing: Name Recognition.

Since the controversy in last week’s debate, Ron Paul has been discussed very frequently all over the mainstream media, positively and negatively. That sounds like a top-tier candidate in the making.

Ron Paul made a good point: the GOP base shrunk significantly last year, largely due to the war and to out of control spending (according to the GOPs own analyses); these are Paul’s two strongest points.

It’s fine if you want to assert that only a tiny fringe of conservatives don’t want to go perpetually occupy other countries, but you have no proof.

In a few months we’ll have a slightly better idea. This time next year, we’ll have a MUCH better idea.

I’m not making any bets, but I guess I am in a way, since I’ve contributed to the Paul campaign.

Best regards to everyone here. Thanks for the interesting discussion topic.

http://anarchangel.blogspot.com Chris

It’s comments like these that bring to the front why the Libertarians always remind me of those sad little marxists out there:

“But, our ideas are perfect everyone would see that if only they werent fooled by the evil government and corporations. One day, we’ll show them, they’ll see and we’ll lead them in glorious revolution”.

Uhhhh no.

I haven’t been tricked into anything.

Oh and Chuck, as to chickenhawk? Look at who you’re calling a chicken hawk you strawman spouting intellectual cripple. Never mind your ridiculous assertion that because we don’t support Paul that we are somehow advocating gun control or statism; I spent 8 years protecting this country first hand; as did half the contributors of this site.

The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it.

A flat out false assertion there.

We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them.

At best a half truth.

And now, there are new calls for a draft of our young men and women.

A bullshit scare tactic.

We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home.

I believe we are doing, in principle though not currently in practice, the right thing by intervening in Iraq. Now what we need to do is win the damn war; and yes it is entirely doable if we have the political balls to do it.

“bringing the troops home” may feel good to people; but it’s nothing more than that.

Too often we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments that are despised. Then, we become despised. Too often we have supported those who turn on us, like the Kosovars who aid Islamic terrorists, or the Afghan jihads themselves, and their friend Osama bin Laden. We armed and trained them, and now weâ€™re paying the price.

As I noted above, we could have been perfect angels, and they’d still be coming after us. Our foreign policy is completely irrelevant to their hatred for us or their attacks on us.

Anyone who thinks that changing our foreign policy will make us more secure is deluding themselves. They are diving into that same fallacy that weak kids try to appease bullys with, that abused women try to appease their abusive husbands with: “if I’m just nice to him and don’t make him mad, he won’t hurt me”

Too often we have supported those who turn on us, like the Kosovars who aid Islamic terrorists, or the Afghan jihads themselves, and their friend Osama bin Laden. We armed and trained them, and now weâ€™re paying the price.

The military is overstretched, the possibility of a draft will start being a discussed as necessary the longer we stay in the current deployment posture. A so far, it appears to be a war without end.

The failures of American Foreign Policies have been well documented. Intervention doesn’t work and it often makes a bad situation worse.

Michael

what foreign policy of ours caused the muslims to rape, enslave and murder American sea goers in the 1780s?

Well, Jefferson went and asked the Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja just that question, his response:

“Islam…was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

If our troops never went into Saudi Arabia, bin Laden would have found a different excuse for his attacks.

R. Harmon

Like I said, if you want to assign a whole ethnic/cultural/religious group of people to the evil category you can expect eventually to join that category as well. It’s convenient to lump people into nice collectivist categories, but humans are actually much more complicated than that.

As far as “not funding Bin Laden”, yes, I am sure the CIA’s check wasn’t made out to him directly, just the mujahideen that he and the US were supporting at the time.

Let’s not pretend that the two never touched in any way.

rob

—–As I noted above, we could have been perfect angels, and theyâ€™d still be coming after us.——-

When cornered, the neocon will resort to hypotheticals or it’s supposed future telling abilities, to present “facts”.

They will tell us how things “might hvae been” or how things “will happen” if we dont listen to them, when historical trends have sconsistantly proven otherwise.

And Iraq, above all, is the crown jewel stoeln from their future telling crown. A blight on all their logic and claims of understanding foreign policy.

Mission Accomplished
Flowers and Sweets
last throes, if you will

they all will sting, again and again, for decades, and remind you all how woefuly misinformed and completely out of touch with reality your views on American Foreign policy realy are, and how utterly terribel your future telling skills have proven.

http://anarchangel.blogspot.com Chris

The people may not be evil; their religion certainly is.

If they follow the dictates of their religion, then they are doing evil.

rob

———
humans are actually much more complicated than that.
——–

That’s the real problem with the neoconservatives… they never understood human nature, never understood human misery, and never understood war. Most of them are blue-bloods.

Harvey

Honestly I don’t believe that Ron Paul would make a good president, but he is bringing to light subjects that America has to discuss. He may not be in office as our President, but I think he realizes that and is using the small amount of spot light that he has now to get his point across and wake America up. Plus he is standing strong after he makes his statements which shows he isn’t going to walked over easily.
Want more on this subject? Read what Christopher Ruddy has to say.

http://anarchangel.blogspot.com Chris

Harvey,

I would absolutely agree with you there, if it weren’t for the fact that his statements on the war and terrorism have discredited his ideas in the eyes of the American people as a whole.

Robert

Chris, can you enumerate the dictates of their religion, as separate from any societal dicates they may also be operating under? I won’t be surprised if you can’t, since many Muslims can’t do so themselves. However, there *is* a difference between “actual core Islam” and what most of our islamic enemies practice.

This isn’t to say that Islam is sweetness and light, just that the issue is much more complex than “mere” religion.

And in the end, it often does boil down to history, both ours and theirs.

(What’s the frequency, Kenneth?)

To the author…

Translation: People like you didn’t matter before and don’t matter now. People who get their asses off the carpet and do something matter. Even if voting your conscience doesn’t get you your candidate, at least getting him discussed aims the discussion, as we’ve already seen.

uhm

What is the religious persuasion of the Afghan groups the US supported? If Sunni, what school of Islam?

(What’s the frequency, Kenneth?)

By the way, how can you be “libertarian” and endorse the US National Offense?

crispy

Thanks, Chris, for your response. I respect your opinion, but submit that there may be some validity to Ron Paul’s assertions. Note that the statement on his website is only a one-page summary of his positions.

The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information.

This may be a reference to the WMD’s which were never found, or to the allegation that Saddam Hussein supported and abetted the 9/11 attacks. Both were used to “sell” the war to us.

The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it.

In some ways the area IS more dangerous. Aside from the obvious (the deaths of over 3600 US military, car bombs, destruction of the country’s infrastructure) the occupation of Iraq has provided an excuse for extremists to advocate more acts of terrorism against the US.

We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them.

After Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, bin Laden offered to help defend Saudi Arabia (with 12,000 armed men) but was rebuffed by the Saudi government. Bin Laden publicly denounced his government’s dependence on the U.S. military and demanded an end to the presence of foreign military bases in the country. According to reports (by the BBC and others), the 1990/91 deployment of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia in connection with the Gulf War upset Muslims because the Saudi government claims legitimacy based on their role as guardians of the sacred Muslim cities of Mecca and Medina. After the Gulf War cease-fire agreement left Saddam Hussein remaining in power in Iraq, the ongoing presence of long-term bases for non-Muslim U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia continued to undermine the Saudi rulers’ perceived legitimacy and inflamed anti-government Islamist militants, including bin Laden. from Wikipedia

And now, there are new calls for a draft of our young men and women.

This is an ongoing topic in Congress: Among others, the Marine Corps Times reports that “The Senate Armed Services Committee heard testimony Tuesday that increasing the size of the Army and Marine Corps may not resolve severe and growing personnel problems. There was even talk of returning to the draft to fill the ranks.” You can find a list of articles on Google News.

We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home.

Leaving Iraq to the side a moment, it’s hard to justify a national interest in our intervention in Somalia, Kosovo, or Vietnam, to name a few. Back to Iraq: arguably, we MAY have done the right thing in deposing Saddam, but if you compare how we handled Noriega, we went in in December 20, 1989 and finished January 3, 1990. Regarding the assertion that “it is entirely doable if we have the political balls to do it”, the war in Iraq has morphed from a conflict against an identified enemy (Saddam and his regime) to a counter-insurgency action. We’ve won already, but now we have to play whack-a-mole against a disconnected cloud of insurgent groups.

Too often we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments that are despised. Then, we become despised.

For an example, look at our support of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Shah of Iran. When he was overthrown, Iran went from being a friend to being an enemy.
Regarding your assertion that “Our foreign policy is completely irrelevant to their hatred for us or their attacks on us”, can you point me to terrorist actions or fatwas against Switzerland?
You said, “Anyone who thinks that changing our foreign policy will make us more secure is deluding themselves” and in the short term, that’s likely to be true. The fire has already been lit, and not playing with matches is a good strategy for the long term.
This is not to say that terrorist actions will never happen again. The shootings in Virginia show that madmen can happen anywhere. However, we can definitely do better than trying to be the “world’s policeman.”

Bob Weber

From those “libertarians” whose only complaint against the war is that it was “mismanaged”, I eagerly await the White Paper on How to Invade, Occupy, and Socially Engineer a Nation the Libertarian Way.

uhm

Oh yeah, Michael our foreign policy of foreign aid/tribute (sound familiar? It is our policy now) and being wussy caused the Muslims to attack us in the 18th Century. Today we prop up failed regimes and be wussy. We are being wussy now. We put in a government in Iraq and it is going on vacation while Americans die. It is a symptom of being wussy. We know the terrorist are in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Why do we not go into these countries? It is because we are wussy.

Don’t forget Clinton attacked Serbian Christians and they now are now being persecuted. KLA are a bunch of Islamo-Fascist. The Russians were horrified we attacked a Christian nation.

Does anybody believe we will defend Western Civilization and Destroy Islam?

Steve Dasbach

Approximately 20% of Republican voters want us to bring our troups home now, and that percentage is continuing to increase. In a 10-12 candidate race, that’s a large enough block to put Paul into the top tier — IF he can successfully mobilize that constituency.

If the surge fails (which is likely), the percentage of Republicans re-evaluating the war will increase even more.

the most recent Zogby poll shows that Paul has broken away from the rest of the second tier (3% compared to 1% or less for the rest) in New Hampshire, one of the few states he’s campaigned in. Fred Thompson recieved 6% in the same poll.

Ron Paul is still a long shot to win the Republican nomination. But he’s not as much of a long shot as some establishment Republicans seem to think.

Seer

“Anyone who thinks that changing our foreign policy will make us more secure is deluding themselves. They are diving into that same fallacy that weak kids try to appease bullys with, that abused women try to appease their abusive husbands with: â€œif Iâ€™m just nice to him and donâ€™t make him mad, he wonâ€™t hurt meâ€ ”

If they are pissed because of cultural differences, then it should be obvious that the US would be much lower on their list of targets that most European nations. It’s a wonder that Holland hasn’t been burnt to the ground yet.

You can keep your bully/abused wife metaphor. I’ll keep my hornet’s nest metaphor. They’re certainly hornets regardless of what we do, but we’d be fools to keep thrwoing rocks at the nest.

As far as you being a “libertarian”, with friends like you, we don’t need enemies. I’ve never known of a “libertarian” who favors “having troops in a country that asks us for them”. I don’t know which “libertarians” you’ve read or studied, but I think it’s safe to say that this is the sort of thing Von Mises, Rothbard and other founders of modern “libertarianism” would scoff at.

And no, there’s nothing substantive in your orignal post, except the inflammatory garbage about a “cult” being “smacked”. Congrats, you flamed, and now you are outflamed.

However, it’s true I did you a disservice, as you actually posted some “points” in another post.

Here you go:

“Which Al-Qaeda grievances do you want to give in and make go away:

1) The existance of the state of Israel.”

As far as Israel and her “right to exist”, my esteemed, deep thinking colleague, I’d put it to you that *States* don’t have *Rights*, only *Powers* delegated to them (willingly or not) by their constituents.

Some of us aren’t too crazy about the US foreign policy dog being wagged by the Israel tail. We’re also sick of militarists like you justifying the overwhelming clout of AIPAC. Oh, and *ESPIONAGE* against my sovereign state by the Israelis does not make me especially eager to send them my $$$. Of course, apologists like you will actually *justify* those actions, I’m sure.

“2) The removal of the slightly less insane governments in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and other Arab nations with a replacement by full-fledged jihadist states with Sharia law.”

Wait a minute… you mean it is the duty of the US Government to “remove” states? That’s mighty “libertarian” of you. And you promote “democracy”, I assume… except when the elections don’t go your way, eg Lebanon.

“3) U.S. forces out of the Middle East, although theyâ€™ve been invited there by the local governments.”

I don’t pay taxes to protect foreign kleptocracies. Sorry, that just doesn’t work for me.

I’m done. So are you but I doubt you’ll notice. Go ahead with the last word there, Mr. Liberty.

Tim

Hey KEVIN, who says I’m full of shit: here it is, direct from Saul on his website. The Michian GOP petition is no more. Saul whatever his last name is just waited to release it until the weekend so there wouldn’t be any news coverage of it. The question is will DRUDGE put the retractions up on his website as well?

I’ll accept an apology here, or you can go ahead & GET INVOLVED next time instead of yelling at people & we’ll call it even, OK?

James Aragon

Ron Paul has made it clear in other interviews that he would still hunt down Osama Bin Laden. He certainly is not saying he would just shrug his shoulders and lament that we deserved it. He also has not called for an isolationist policy, but instead wants us to remove ourselves from meddling behavior contrary to our values.

http://thelibertypapers.org/2005/11/22/a-bit-about-kevin/ Kevin

Tim,

Hey KEVIN, who says Iâ€™m full of shit: here it is, direct from Saul on his website. The Michian GOP petition is no more. Saul whatever his last name is just waited to release it until the weekend so there wouldnâ€™t be any news coverage of it. The question is will DRUDGE put the retractions up on his website as well?

Iâ€™ll accept an apology here, or you can go ahead & GET INVOLVED next time instead of yelling at people & weâ€™ll call it even, OK?

Fine, I apologize.

R. Harmon

Well, Kevin, at least Tim didn’t ask you to “withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn’t really mean that.” :)

Ken H

How anyone who calls himself a libertarian can support Bush’s Folly in Iraq is really remarkable. Such a person needs to reconsider calling himself a libertarian. Such a person sounds more like a Sean Hannity-type Bush “conservative”.

some Doctrinaire Libertarian

Let me make this even clearer. I like Paul, I respect him, I agree with him on far more issues than any other candidate; BUT FOR HIS POSITIONS ON THE WAR AND 9/11 ALONE, I WOULD NEVER VOTE FOR HIM.

I wonder if there are any degrees between isolationism and imperialism. I wonder if 200 million single issue voters with situational ethics make for a stronger country than 200 million doctrinaire libertarians.

Iâ€™m certainly not calling the original poster a single issue voter with situational ethics. I donâ€™t know him well enough. Given that he writes:

Oh and I should note, Iâ€™m a libertarian, not a Libertarian.

I support fundamental liberty; and the supremacy in moral principle of the liberty of the sovereign man.

Iâ€™m guessing that I agree with him on far more issues than any other small-L libertarian. BUT FOR HIS POSITIONS ON VOTING FOR A CANDIDATE WITH WHOM HE AGREES ON FAR FEWER ISSUES THAN RON PAUL, I WOULD NEVER SUPPORT HIS POST.

I agree with the original poster that â€œRon Paul never had anything more than a snowballs chance in hellâ€. Though Iâ€™d still use: â€œprobably doesnâ€™t haveâ€, as I am not always right, without question. But then again, being a doctrinaire libertarian, I seldom worry about wearing the team jersey of the winner. I just try to express my support for the candidate that I agree with on far more issues than the other candidates. So far, that looks like Ron Paul. So I guess my support is also not very hidden.

Will he win? Weâ€™ll count up the 200 million voting age ballots, including mine, and Iâ€™ll get back to you, but donâ€™t hold your breath.

Some of us arenâ€™t too crazy about the US foreign policy dog being wagged by the Israel tail. Weâ€™re also sick of militarists like you justifying the overwhelming clout of AIPAC. Oh, and *ESPIONAGE* against my sovereign state by the Israelis does not make me especially eager to send them my $$$. Of course, apologists like you will actually *justify* those actions, Iâ€™m sure.

That’s right, those dastardly Jews who control American foreign policy. If Israel was such an evil country and if they truly controlled the United States, why haven’t the two nations slaughtered every Arab in order to expand Israel?

Wait a minuteâ€¦ you mean it is the duty of the US Government to â€œremoveâ€ states? Thatâ€™s mighty â€œlibertarianâ€ of you. And you promote â€œdemocracyâ€, I assumeâ€¦ except when the elections donâ€™t go your way, eg Lebanon.

I never said it was the US government’s job to remove states. I was stating it was the goal of Al-Qaeda to removal certain states in the Middle East.

Iâ€™m done. So are you but I doubt youâ€™ll notice. Go ahead with the last word there, Mr. Liberty.

Because you can’t debate kook, so you’re heading off to Antiwar.com, Lew Rockwell.com, Prisonplanet.com, or some other kook site to hang with your fellow kooks, wear your tin foil hats, and rant about the Zionist/NWO/Bilderberger/BohemianGrove/CFR/Jewish conspiracy.

js290

AND Iâ€™M A LIBERTARIAN FOR GODS SAKE

What the fuck does that even mean?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity js290

Because you canâ€™t debate kook

Believing in The Golden Rule makes one a kook?

uhm

js290, Ron Paul got hammered for the part of the equation he left out. The version of Islam Al Qaedia subscribes to is violent. Ron Paul didn’t do himself favors by not addressing his desire to get Osama and how he is going to do that. His opponents are high on declarations of violence but low on ideas.

He is right that the first step is quit pissing them off. The second step is_________ . It isn’t ignoring them. It isn’t going over there playing hide and go seek.

tarran

Yes, Al Queda is violent. However, against whom will they direct their violence? Whomever stands in their way of establishing a caliphate. They are a political organization that does not waste money on things that don’t advance their cause.

Al Queda would probably focus its energies on fighting the Saudi Monarchy, which can afford to hire good fighters and equipment. Even if Al Queda won and toppled a country, they are going to need money, especially since Al Queda’s tenets seem to discourage local manufacturing. Thus they will have to import the weapons they need to oppress people etc, and export oil or heroin to pay for it. People tend not to bomb their customers; it’s bad for repeat business.

Additionally, if the U.S. were not seen as an invader, how much of al Queda’s vision would resonate? Look, even in the U.S. we have pretty wacky, violent, people. Take the founder of the Aryan nations, for example. In the main, these guys have trouble even scraping together 40 – 50 followers. And the quality of their followers are so pathetic that they probably couldn’t successfully attack a church full of Amish kids.

When Osama bin Laden met with the Saudi Crown Prince to pitch a mujahadeen style resistance to Saddam Hussein, he was laughed out of the meeting. A major component of his ability to attract competent followers subsequently was the evidence he was able to point to that the U.S. was on a “crusade against Islam”. If he had not been able to make a strong case, he would have been considered yet another loon suffering from a persecution complex instead of a visionary leader.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WobzdQ4a_4 js290

Ron Paul didnâ€™t do himself favors by not addressing his desire to get Osama and how he is going to do that.

You must have been swallowing Rudy cum when Ron Paul said the following regarding the ridiculous “hypothetical terrorist” attack question, “We forgot about [bin Laden]… here we have a hypothetical attack, we ought to be dealing with the one (9/11) we have right now.”

As Amy Poehler on SNL’s Weekend Update pointed out:

“A new hummingbird species was discovered in a cloud forest in Colombia, though still nothing on bin Laden.”

So, what are the other candidates going to do about bin Laden? Hell, what is Dubya doing about bin Laden?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WobzdQ4a_4 js290

The second step is_________ .

Ron Paul wants to bring the troops home to protect our own borders. That seems like a legitimate second step…

uhm

Good points tarran. How about Israel? Wouldn’t hate for Israel be used as a recruitment platform?

js290, Where did I say that Rudy or any of those Bush clones knew what they were doing? I know Ron Paul is for dealing with the people who actually attacked us on 9/11 but how is he going to go about doing it? During his blowback comment he needed to re-emphasize going after Al Qaedia.

uhm

I agree js290 securing our border would make a great second step.

http://thelibertypapers.org/2005/11/22/a-bit-about-kevin/ Kevin

tarran,

Al-Qaeda would probably turn their immediate attention to the moderate Sunni Arab states first until another larger nation comes in as an ally to the Sunni Arab states; then that nation will be become the target.

rob

17,500 real people now listed on myspace.

Real people, with real friends to verify they are real, seventeen thousand times over, and I am proud to say I am one of them.

I have been involved with the Libertarian Party since 2000…. but something feels really different this time with Ron Paul. Magic.

Conrad

I’m a strong Ron Paul supporter because of his overall positions regarding the scope of government and a return to a government bound by its founding document, the U.S. Constitution. He is the only one of 20+ candidates – Democratic and Republican – who will surely shrink the role of government and not further expand it.

I’m not a traditional supporter of his position on the War in Iraq, but I’ll admit that he’s been the most consistent, honest, and straightforward of all the candidates in his position on the war. In the first debate, Dr. Paul clearly articulated his views on limited government and eliminating the tax-and-spend culture of Washington, but he barely got noticed outside of the internet. In the second debate the media and Mayor Giuliani, not Dr. Paul, sought to make a big deal of his positions on the war, and it’s help him to gain popularity and exposure.

So lovers of liberty, regardless of their views on the use of American force to oppose tyranny in other nations, should be supporting Ron Paul’s 2008 bid. If his opposition to the war is the thing that it takes to get him national exposure, so be it; the more people who listen to him, the more people will hear his true convictions of liberty, freedom, and returning the government to its constitutional roles.

I would love to see some proof of the “phantom” number that is roaming the political ethereal world promoting more than one candidate. You see the difference between a mainstream candidate supporter and a Paul supporter is the fact that we act out of passion for our views, which he advocates very clearly. It seems very odd I assume and I must admit I feel a little weird about it because I have never been motivated politically like this in my life. The man makes it very easy for me to get involved. I literally feel like this is the unseen opportunity to make this country the majesty that it is supposed to be, and Iâ€™m tired as hell on thinking of the lesser evil. This time I can vote with a clear conscience and vote for principles I believe in. The first things we tell our kids when they begin school are â€œdonâ€™t start any fights; treat other as you want to be treatedâ€. Yet we canâ€™t follow that simple advice as a nation. I donâ€™t have kids yet, but I must assume that when a concerned parent tells their child that, he does so with honesty.

tom

wait and watch you establishment asshole. My country will be better served by an honest man even if he is wrong than a lying sack of shit that is right. America needs a wake up call and I hope this is it. For the first time in 60 years I have someone I trust. Ron Paul

MarkCinPhx

Chris:
I’ve read your article and the comments, as well as the description of yourself, and the founding reasons for ‘The Liberty Papers’. With these in mind, I cannot understand your strong dislike of Dr. Paul. I understand your disagreement with his stance on Iraq, but not how you can use that to totally disagree with him as a candidate. Quite simply: Dr. Paul is the closest candidate to the stated values on your description page, and the description page for this site. Knocking him, calling him a kook, knocking his supporters, calling them kooks, does little to promote the values that you say you support. Am I wrong?

http://anarchangel.blogspot.com Chris

Mark, you’ll note I say explicitly in my post that I like and respect Dr. Paul; and agree with him on 90% of the issues; but on this issue alone, I will not vote for him.

I don’t call him a kook; I call the rabid doctrinaire non-intervention, non-agression principle Libertarians kooks (in fact I never explicitly said either in this post or comments, though I did imply the latter); and their behavior in this comment thread alone clearly bears that out.